The newest aircraft carrier was just commissioned with a price tag of $13 billion. It has had numerous huge glitches along the way. The Navy still doesn't know if the catapult system works to full capability. Some experts think the aircraft carrier is becoming obsolete.
One mans opinion. “ aircraft carriers will face a dense and growing threat across their full range of operations as A2/AD systems continue to proliferate. Operating the carrier in the face of increasingly lethal and precise munitions will thus require the United States to expose a multibillion-dollar asset to high levels of risk in the event of a conflict. Indeed, under such circumstances, an adversary with A2/AD capabilities would likely launch a saturation attack against the carrier from a variety of platforms and directions. Such an attack would be difficult—if not impossible—to defend against.”
Our two strongest military adversaries are China and Russia. The aircraft carrier is a floating airfield, to put it simply. Can one of our military experts war game a scenario where an aircraft carrier would come into use against either Russia or China.
Do we really have anything better than aircraft carriers? They are not "obsolete" until they can be replaced.
Hopefully that would occur in the future as opposed to an all out war with major powers (though war should obviously be avoided)
Still - warfare is always changing and hopefully our military leaders can lead the way by anticipating future change and developments
The only scenario I can see is confronting China on the South China Sea "Islands" they created where the use of naval aircraft to keep seaways open would give an advantage to the US over land based aircraft from the mainland.
The only scenario with Russia would be like what happened in Syria where an aircraft carrier offshore allows us to have an airbase where ever we wanted it.
Do we really have anything better than aircraft carriers? They are not "obsolete" until they can be replaced.
They're obsolete when they're vulnerable. Replaced or not, if they can be blown out if the water with relative ease they're obsolete. Not saying we're there yet, or that we will be anytime soon, but that's the litmus test.
Our military constantly looks at the growing A2/AD capabilities of our adversaries, but with the way our civilizations still living predominantly near the littorals, our Navy is still the most effective and timely means for power projection. While it's true that Chinese and Russian antisurface warfare capabilities have become better, our own carrier battlegroup tactics and strategies continue to evolve to meet those increasing threats. What we see is that our military will continue to move towards joint and combined warfare where even with our carriers approaching a threat area with its incredible capabilities, it will require strategic bombing from land based long range aircrafts (bombers) as well as increased cyber warfare to nutralize these growing A2/AD threats to increase the survivability of our Navy assets that will then be able to carry out sustained air operations from our carriers (70+ aircrafts on a single carrier is a frightening prospect for any enemy whether they're some small nation or China or Russia).
In the end, we will continue to see our military capabilities, tactics, and strategies evolve in response to the growing capabilities of our enemies. To bring it back to the aircraft carrier, it is by far one of the most powerful military capabilities ever developed, and it is still the greatest means for power protection. However, even with how powerful it is, military is all about combining the capabilities available to maximize lethality and survivability.
From what I understand, the Navy is considering more carriers, but smaller, more agile ones that have more sophisticated weaponry.
The one worry they have with gigantic airports on the sea is that if China and the U.S. went head to head, China could theoretically throw a swarm of hundreds of missiles at it simultaneously and even though the carrier is surrounded by dozens of ships and submarines that can take out missiles and torpedoes, one or more could slip through the cracks if they came all at once. That is their one vulnerability.
Apart from the 13 billion cost tag, it has the ability to carry up to 90 aircraft and many (like the F-35B Lightning II designed specifically for the Navy) cost 125+ million each so it's possible the total dollar cost sitting as a fortress on the ocean is closer to 20 billion.
The fast paced technology race makes many fighting machines nearly obsolete by the time they are built. Thankfully, the U.S. leads the technology race.
Regardless, a carrier like the USS Ford is like taking a smaller country's entire military to any place in the world.
Certainly nothing that floats.
Certainly limited to only the super powers or nuclear
Some land bases might offer a fight but that would be WW3 and better attack a ship then the mainland.
I don't think they are as vulnerable as you think. But apart from that, the "keep people working" is very true.
Whether it's ships, planes, weaponry, or space exploration, it has great payback at the local level. Just like with sending rockets into space, many people see nothing more than dollar signs being sent to nowhere and consider it a waste. But the truth is, that rocket (or ship or tank) is just a bunch of steel, magnesium, metals of all kinds, plastics, wires, glass, etc., that came from the ground of planet earth.
The labor required to mine the ore, to smelt the ore into usable materials, to mold, cut, and fabricate the materials, etc., is all money being spent that puts laborers to work (who in turn pay taxes and spend money on personal items that puts others to work) and these programs provide high tech jobs for geniuses and has the benefit of driving advances in technology to new insane levels. These things are great "bang for your buck" government programs.
I don't know, I mentioned your name and you came through.
Obviously you've bought into the hype of the still being developed hypersonic weapons. 30 minutes, huh?
As the article from popular science (article linked) aptly points out, speed is one thing but it's not THE THING that will determine how effective they are. It's so so much more than that. Might as well just say that these nuclear powered nations will just hit our carriers with a nuclear weapon. At this point, it's about the same level of premature paranoia.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
Awesome!
I don't know, I mentioned your name and you came through.
But I'm far far from any kind of an expert at any level and I haven't made any definitive conjectures about anything beyond throwing out how the military and warfare works. I definitely didn't say if they will never be obsolete or are already obsolete.
Enjoy.
Aircraft Carriers and Maritime Strategy. - ( New Window )
I see you weigh in on almost every topic. Are you an expert on everything?
Quote:
Awesome!
I see you weigh in on almost every topic. Are you an expert on everything?
Pray tell on what topics I weigh in on beyond a few military topics. Then I would answer your question regarding if I'm even knowledgeable on that topic. Go ahead, browse through the threads I've posted on...don't be lazy.
Quote:
In comment 13536534 RC02XX said:
Quote:
Awesome!
I don't know, I mentioned your name and you came through.
But I'm far far from any kind of an expert at any level and I haven't made any definitive conjectures about anything beyond throwing out how the military and warfare works. I definitely didn't say if they will never be obsolete or are already obsolete.
Expert is a relative term in our limited community. You be one of the few that be closest to that description
That said, in my short time on this planet, very few military resources have the same impact as an aircraft carrier parked offshore of some hostile opponent... especially more minor but still dangerous country.
Boy are you ever right. The military is constantly testing and evaluating all threats and types of threats far better than any armchair admirals and generals could ever imagine. New weapons are being developed and worked on as we speak for offense and defensive situations.
France planned for new ways to deal with Germany after WWI, and created a Maginot Line expecting to use it as a safer form of trench warfare, but were stunned to find that the stalemates of WWI had been replaced by the speed and agility of WWII
Very few in the US military fully understood how important carriers would be until after the war had started - and even then mainly because the geography and style of fighting in the Pacific theater demanded that type of weapon
I am skeptical of spending 13 billion on new carriers today - although like everyone from the past I may be wrong on how future wars will be fought. One of the great benefits of carriers during WWII was that the enemy rarely knew where they were, and with current satellite imaging they can't really hide. Add to that the ability militarily advanced nations will have to send clusters of missiles or nuclear warheads to the correct spot where a carrier is sitting, and I know I wouldn't want to be on one.
Most US fighting since Vietnam has been trending to smaller more agile groups of specialists, while letting the enemies know we still have the big ticket items back in the shed. Who knows what will become most important by the time we need to use them
I really dislike it when we get into these discussions because the scenario always points out a possible US vulnerability without considering the overwhelming differences in an actual shooting war:
a) Compared to the vulnerabilities and the actual (not theoretical) capabilities of one of our direct ( not asymmetrical or proxy) enemies
b) The game planning a Russia or China or North Korea or Iran would have to consider. Lets play the game from their perspective for a change...they are extraordinarily vulnerable to the US in a direct hot war.
c) They are extraordinarily vulnerable nations in non military ways over the next century
d) They are not trying to beat us militarily. Not trying to beat us militarily. And we are helping their strategies to have a chance. I will expand on this point later.
I believe ( and have tons of evidence over time) these fear based scenarios never occur in a vaccumn. Some where, some place, there is a company, lobbyist, ex military guy/consultant ( its not usually them in active service) who is concerned that we will spend more on more carriers than their favorite/company contract needed framascrams
e) All these scenarios shrink from our losses. Is a $20B loss of a carrier an awful thing? Its a war. In WW2 we lost 10 of them. And won completely and hands down. The best ones were worth $20B all in in those days dollars. The idea that we can fight without having very big losses is not a possibility
There are no invulnerable weapons.
There is one far and away one global dominant military system where coordinated overlapping layers of weapon systems make over committing to attacking any one of them a total chess board sacrifice leaving only a limited king piece against two thirds to three fourths of the opponents pieces moving quickly towards you.
We have outspent the rest of the world for decades and decades. We surround most nations and close in.
If we were the Russians of the Chinese and had the necklaces of Us military they do...we would freak. Ohio submarines in the Artic, outside our ports, in Lithuania, Poland, central Asia below us, Japan and Alaska on the other side, in Scandanavia to the high left of us, in Mongolia between us, In South East Asia, in Turkey and Iraq to the South of us.
There are 761 US Military Bases across the planet. There are 156 Countries with US bases. There are 7 new Countries with 13 New Military Bases since 09/11/2001.
Announced military bases we know about. 156 nations. 761 military bases. Logistics is a major weapon system. Variety of ways to attack is a major weapon system
On a military basis there is no hope of direct confrontation. No hope.
Not true where we are not looking. Our citizens also assume other nations want to conquer and occupy other nations. By and large they don't and they cant.
Why is all this true?
1) We don't fight weapon to weapon. We fight in overlapping coordinated systems 24/7 in all weather. ( small example of comparison. In 2010, China had a plane take off on its soviet era retrofit carrier in the harbor. The first American flight off an aircraft carrier was in 1910. China and Russia have aircraft carriers. Their maintenance and training is a tenth of ours. Can they fight 24/7 launching and re launching well maintained operating jets for weeks and weeks at a time? Can they defend their carriers with the radar and incoming defense systems our carrier combines can?
2) If its a major shooting war with direct, not proxy next tier forces, I am not sure that any one carrier would be the number one concern of either Russia or China. Way before carriers, if I were a China or Russia, I would be worried about cyber so I could communicate, then expend all my defense and offense against already incoming MIRV's, Ohio's with Tridents, and land based air re fueled stealth bombers and non nuclear missiles from anyone of the enormous number of American bases and naval forces stitching across the globe.
3) We attack with layers of weapons systems, manned by trained and continuously tested and maintained weapon layers not any one particular kind.
4) Manned and trained and continuously tested and maintained are key operating words. Neither China nor Russia can claim this.
we could go on and on but Id rather take a break and then talk about how I think they are trying to attack us and what they are trying to do.
We are over resourcing one leg of power ( investments in military are useful to defend, to directly attack and work best in a world of nation states that work together in a framework to advance all citizens of all nations in the framework) when we misunderstand what they are after.
I do think our military spending and adventurism is way over extended but not because I think we invested in obsolete weapons. We don't fight by weapon. We fight by coordinated layers of weapon systems.
Winning a war is now mainly about bringing overwhelming different ways to bear into the killing zone...and sustaining the killing zone despite losses. And sustaining it via logistics and many more ways to attack and many many more things that have to be defended against.
Guys...no one else can land a military that can beat another nations military and then occupy a large diverse country as long as we want to ( militarily as long as we want to). There is no way in the world that Russia or China can go land 7000 miles away and stay for 10 years.
On military terms, to quote a recent quote:" I feel sorry for anyone who attacks the USA"
That does not mean we are not sleeping in some important ways. Nor does I mean we are invulnerable. We are not playing the same game
The ability to project power around the world is critical. The overwhelming mission of the Navy these days is in fact dealing with those smaller threats that tend to be the source of unrest, and there isn't another, better way to move manpower and ordinance in force than a carrier.
Link - ( New Window )
Not much is said about the weapon, but it exists. A country with no ability to access anything that requires electricity immediately puts them in the stone age when it comes to survival or trying to defend themselves. I suspect this weapon would be on the forefront of new warfare in the case of a hostile nation deciding to take up arms against a super power.
Not much is said about the weapon, but it exists. A country with no ability to access anything that requires electricity immediately puts them in the stone age when it comes to survival or trying to defend themselves. I suspect this weapon would be on the forefront of new warfare in the case of a hostile nation deciding to take up arms against a super power.
Although my attempt was nowhere near his detailed and insightful post, I agree with him that focusing on a singular weapons system is shortsighted and unrealistic in the way we fight our current wars. Everything is layered and combined, and that's the only way you can fight effectively. Until that day comes when a single super weapon is developed, no weapon is truly obsolete.
I learned in classes a long time ago that nations are either maritime or continental. USA, Japan and UK are examples of maritime nations. As such their Navies are the preeminent fighting force to defend their shipping and keep the shipping lanes open for trade and the lifeline of the country. (also "island nations."
China, Russia (Germany WW2) are continental, therefore they have the land forces (army) as their preeminent military force. Most of their trade routes are inland and they have large land masses.
Not sure that is a still valid view, but it sure seems it is.
section, imho, that weaves into our discussion but imho, its a close second effect of another phenomenon.
Gary, of course. Of course. I don't mean to be mean, but that's sort of a BBGOTO.
None of this speculation goes anywhere in the event of MAD action. The question was "are carriers now too vulnerable to be effective?" The question assumes a rational world.
We all get that no logic applies in an irrational decision matrix.
Bounded discussion. Madmen and MAD events and destructive acts of nature expand the possibilities beyond discussable. Imho, there is no end to things that could happen. However, understanding and anchoring within the bounds of what we can do something ( even tiny things like voting or engaging in better civic discourse) about seems a human obligation if you are lucky enough to be born in the first world
Those pre ambles addressed; lets turn to how we get defeated despite unmatachable military power.
To do that we need to understand their aims and our aims. And where our framework went off the tracks. And where theirs can.
I'm going to use the idea of "operating framework" rather than strategy for nations ( tribes) and leader by leader we vary but eventually live within a framework for how the imperatives in motion within our "system" works with the rest of the worlds frameworks.
And I am going to divide the Frameworks as applying to:
1) the USA/West/Japan.
2) nations that have to fit in that framework
3) China
4) nations that have to fit into that framework
4) Russia
5) Nations that have to fit in that framework
6) Rogue Nations ( NK, Iran, )
7) Nations that don't fit in
lets discuss each "framework" from the bottom up?
then lets discuss how to keep our framework going and what the threats to it really are
before we do, lets explore "frameworks"
We had/have the wealthiest framework not because of military strength but because that ( especially naval and air force projection) is one side of a multi sided frame.
Our frame, like many nations descended from the Hanseatic League, relies on trade, wise capital flow and enforcement of long term stable contract law. Trade requires long term stable veneration of contracts so the risk of lending is lower. Trade requires production far in advance of monetization. How is there enough cash to get lift and life way before the money is collected and returned after sale?
Banks don't lend without a sense they will collect. So the risks are the borrower and unstable rules of the rulers.
The next frame beyond a dedication to the foundations of trade is a banking system that serves the nation state and does not extract "too much" as a percent of the nations wealth for what is essentially a service of semi public good ( some places have national banks...banking systems must serve national interests. When banking systems work that allocate national wealth to those ventures that most likely lead to greater future national wealth.
The US and the West have a social contract with their people so the rules remain constant given the consent of the governed to peaceful internal governance. Our nations are bounded by internal social justice, rule of law, balance against unbridled power, fact based debate, enough internal income distribution and upwards mobility so others besides the 1% can share in the
Lets go back to an earlier time when the framework was clearest. There was a time when the government, the banking system and the trading companies all had to work within bounds that served to provide stability for the vast majority of people in return for stability for the top say 15-20% of people.
Lets call this framework a stable machine.
it works well when there is economic growth. When the ripple effects of steam, coal, oil and electricity allowed a steadily growing pie...great framework.
Once natural, as opposed to financial engineering growth slows down the frame will warp. Once the political leaders let managed greed within too many of those who are bankers get too easy then the frame will warp and the smart investment of capital will serve banking wealth instead of national wealth ( for decades the banking system ( FIRE) was 2-3% of GDP.) Money making is not national wealth or a national industry.
Once the natural growth of the pie slows there is too much advantage in manipulating the people. Always a flaw of every nation state.
That said the momentum of our post WW2 position is holding the reserve currency. Not just the military. Our advantage in the world is holding the reserve currency of record. A strong enough military is part but nowhere near all required to keep it.
if you don't know the advantages of holding the global reserve currency...well in the immortal thinking of chris r; " I don't trust the internet so I insist you link me to it". Not going to discuss that aspect of this bounded discussion.
the last thing I would say about our national/western framework is that it is a fools errand to connect presidents or parties to it. Since Hamilton and then Lincoln we have steered to the frameworks North Star.
For one example, in the years since the Cold War we spent the same amount on the military ( with tiny percentile shifts) and held the same core views Administration after Administration. I'm not talking about the talking points of who went high or low...im talking about the core weapon systems and spending on those priorities has remained remarkable stable.
So to the interlocking ways our national institutions weave together a stable world order. Those have remained stable under many an Adminstration.
Hence the difference between shifting words and strategies and domestic appeals and a stable framework
So our national frame is warped and weakened...but is still the best frame out there. Among the many challenges to strengthening the frame is knowing what other frames logically want to do.
Have to go back to work so I need to leave that to later
No apology needed. The quality of your content is what matters, and it's always highly appreciated.
Thank you sir
One of the great distinguishing characteristics of the Western Nations is the degree to which:
1) the ordinary people lived within bounded compliance with the laws and norms of their nation state and redressed grievances within the relief valves allowed
2) in the past, very many of the elites lived within bounded compliance with the nation state
3) The degree to which Western societies are fact based and not enslaved to superstition, conspiracy theories, self defeating unfounded beliefs. Travel to non Western lands and stay awhile and the rot underneath, therefore the inability of those societies to learn and correct over time is much greater.
Now a huge number of people skirt, violate and press the edges of the law and the common good. I'm just talking relatively.
This is obviously most important among the top 15% of a nation for there is where tax avoidance and corruption really becomes pervasive and very hard to get away from. Income equality and upward mobility take a hit and then the levels of disenfranchisement leave a nation that needs more repression or a nation who cannot absorb recessions or the dislocations modern technology wreak on different end of the generations that have to live without inward win lose.
To me this last dimension: Compliance with social bounds and laws and discourse within a fact base is a vital part of the Western Framework. So is coherence. Compliance and Coherence. Things fall apart without them. wolfpack mentality, warlords, corruption, disruptions, organized kleptocracy all follow. As do the imperatives driving their frameworks
This is very important when determining the intentions of other frameworks...for many other nations have leaders who do not believe in compliance internally or externally. I did not say moderate. I said consistent and reliable. I did not say sociopaths run those frameworks. I said that leaders in some other frameworks view the internal climb to the top of the wolfpack, and the nature of interacting with other frameworks as a game where they are compliant or not for temporary advantage.
Law vs Convenience ( what you can get away with) vs Force ( what advantage can I take now regardless of what I said my obligations are)
Why is this important?
Well for one thing the risk of trading or investing is much greater.
for another, lets just look at say dealing with Walmart. If you are a supplier you walk out of meetings in Bentonville cursing at your margins but you can go into every WalMart anywhere and the deal is the deal. So now you can find ways to reduce your costs and if so, rely on the consistent application. You walk out of the meeting and by and large inside WalMart everyone gets the memo
Try that with some other regional retail operations. The multi year deal you got at headquarters is the starting point for a new deal here in my sub region for this year unless I need more blood from your stones to make my bonus in the fourth quarter.
Apply that metaphor to our discussion of our and other kinds of frameworks
Now lets go to the far end of the scale.
7) There are nations that location and resources or history did not bless. Outside of the capital there is not really a nation state, means of compliance or coherence.
These nations are simply under resourced. Whoa if circumstances change and they become of interest to the Western World who wants stability the nation cant deliver or they flip family or elite power structures by beckoning one of the other frameworks into the game ( Pakistan does this). This fate befell many a ME nation once a natural resource was discovered. They went from irrelevant to prey ( many in South America, some islands in Indonesia, many but not all in the ME).
6) Rogue nations
For historical and advanced klepto or pawn reasons there are rogue nation states. They don't want to play within any framework and are so suspicious with such poor human resources they trade today for the elites in return for any building into the future of their own nation. They are unlendable. Not trade worthy. They get along with Russia and China more than the West for reasons we will cover.
NK is the first that comes to mind but don't fool ourselves there are some interesting other ones. Cuba. Venzueala. Libya. Pakistan.
Iran is one of the nations I have trouble classifying. Just because they don't like the West and we don't know how to deal with them does not mean they are a rogue. They contain compliant and non compliant strains. They don't deal well with and don't last a decade before throwing out every nation ( Watch what happens to Russia for the fifth time in 150 years. Maybe they do ok with china. I don't think so. They don't play with the rest of the world for different reasons then many of the other klepto soaked rogues.
The most important reason to discuss rogue frameworks is because Russia is a variation. And china a variation of that on the spectrum.
Russia has a very different framework.
It wants no rules in the world but rules of might and advantage. It will deploy the full range of tactics ( cooperate on nuclear issues for decades with us because it is an advantage. Generate costly refugee crisis for Europe. Set up money laundering operations within as many a western bank as they can). Disrupt and erode common coherence everywhere they can. it is a nation that is weaker than the Soviet Union ( who contained patriots and theoreticians) in ways but with a much less bounded and non compliant band of advantage seekers.
Their goal is to weaken our status as a coherent framework to do business with until we lose reserve currency status...whereupon its a pirates world. Stay away from the forts and take what you can.
Seen as a pirate nation, now the parlay on nuclear arms makes sense. Its not an agreement. Its a parlay. Everything is for now. Nothing is nailed down.
Now, over the long run they are the nation I think falls the furthest and loses the most boundary coherence within years 20 to 100 years out. I think their future is a worlds largest failed state. I think they are the nation most likely to lose 20% of its population to environmental disasters. I think their human resources degrade even faster in the future. They are already a demographic catastrophe and a addiction ridden population whose productivity per person is declining into the lower end of second world levels. I think if Europe thinks it has a refugee crisis now then just wait.
China is next of the frameworks.
I think China has all of the above frameworks shaking out within them.
Unlike Russia, they have too much to gain by not being "reasonably" interacting with the rest of the world. I think they will remain at the edge of Western frameworks in terms of compliance and interlocking advantage from being followers of treaties, deals and contracts.
I think they seek advantage for them but unlike the soviets they don't want to have a no rule no coherence pirates world. The soviets would like us destroyed. Not true of the Chinese.
Its easy to see how we can come up with ways to mesh their needs and stabilize our world.
They are second on my list to have huge people killing environmental issues.
So, how do we lose?
Looking at the Soviets ( yes, right now they are Soviets) in traditional and cold war nation acquisition terms. Looking at their threat to us in those terms.
Becoming just like them betrays our most successful meaning and way to live. We and the worlds people live in a less secure and bounded and stable world where coherence and dependability and compliance with agreements are no longer the dominant and most influential framework in the world.
Will some people with American citizenship do well in a pirates world? Yes. Some can live many years in a world where might makes right. But the question is what should we and our children do in a time when the framework is warped and under the strain of bitterness that limited growth and an accelerating sense of income inequality produces?
slowly strengthen the framework or more quickly join the soviets in the pursuit of the possible advantages for some pirate captains in a pirates world?
Do not miss the fact that our own Constitution did not include the then unknown entity known as corporations under its woven checks and balances that prevent the tyranny of factions. That is one loophole in our need to strengthen the framework for the century ahead
On a relative scale...we disagree. As it applies to many more world people than before WW2.
on an absolute scale...no it has not and cannot.
On the overspending and over reliance on military strength we absolutely agree. We violently agree. I would quibble that it is mis shappen
And my major point is that we cannot devote the percentage of GDP we spend on the military and health in the last six months of life and grow the pie. And if we don't grow the pie sooner for young people we will be joining Russia in one hundred years in a slower trend line downwards
The only way we have done those two things as long as we have is simple: We have the reserve currency so other nations fuel our largesse.
Education, the debt levels our young people carry and the need for work ...those all are the problems. But they all require a nation built on compliance with social contracts
This is extremely uninformed and confuses the lack of clear national policy which leads to inability to "win wars" with our mutually capabilities and tactics to win battles. War is a complex mixture of martial actions with national security policy actions. Don't confuse the latter for the former.
Second and lesser but interesting in the 20 year run is if we can continue to get the operating cost of fracking lower and lower so that of and by itself that destabilizes the Sunni, Shia and Soviet world for awhile.
I cant yet sort through the competing claims on that issue. It is costing less and less as operators refine new techniques
The military has been able to adapt to any form of enemy actions, whether through tactical innovations or technology innovations. It's how our leaders apply those capabilities and the restrictions they place on these military capabilities that have caused much of the issues. But then again, since World War II, we haven't been involved in a decisive conventional warfare beyond the first Gulf War, which we absolutely won even before the war actually began. It's hard to win a war against terrorism when we don't even really know what that means. And while I agree that using a hammer to kill a fly is not smart and has been happening over and over again, it's not the hammer that is the issue (it's still a great tool). It's the decision makers, who decide to use the hammer that's the issue.
Quote:
think the entire method of the US armed forces is entirely outdated. The US hasnt won a war since WW2. We outgun everyone to the point where we are using a hammer to kill a fly.
This is extremely uninformed and confuses the lack of clear national policy which leads to inability to "win wars" with our mutually capabilities and tactics to win battles. War is a complex mixture of martial actions with national security policy actions. Don't confuse the latter for the former.
The military has been able to adapt to any form of enemy actions, whether through tactical innovations or technology innovations. It's how our leaders apply those capabilities and the restrictions they place on these military capabilities that have caused much of the issues. But then again, since World War II, we haven't been involved in a decisive conventional warfare beyond the first Gulf War, which we absolutely won even before the war actually began. It's hard to win a war against terrorism when we don't even really know what that means. And while I agree that using a hammer to kill a fly is not smart and has been happening over and over again, it's not the hammer that is the issue (it's still a great tool). It's the decision makers, who decide to use the hammer that's the issue.
I feel as if I just had lunch with John Keynes, Milton Friedman, Thomas Paine and Emerson.
A little overwhelmed by such profundities and writing skills.
Much more mundane: The Gerald Ford is built have dramatically lower operating costs, the initial capital investment mitigated because she requires almost half the crew of our Nimitz class carriers. Many reasons for that, including an open archetecture but electricity replaces steam in a lot of her functions - though after reading that piece it seems that may increase her vulnerability.
The rail gun and laser's may provide a cloak for her to operate under, but in an all out war, nothing is safe - land based or otherwise.
I found that curious along with the benign view of China. Seems the South Seas land grab belies that, Tibet is not historically China's either, nor the land grab from India. I will grant the historical relationship of Formosa (Tawain) but even that separation is from another century and could be considered a land grab.
Greater Russia has been in the Ukraine since the time of Peter the Great and while I understand our rejection of her claims there, it's not a "land grab" in the same sense that China's intrusion into the South China Sea should be regarded. It's startling to look at a map and see The Phillipines, Austraila and South East Asia between (and much closer to) the territory China is claiming.
China's claims go back 75 years, but they were baseless then and the world has categorically denied them in the present context. That, along with the dispute with india and Tibet, seems to belie your quote.
I do think they have more interests that are similar ( but not the same) to interests we have over the long haul as compared to other frameworks
Its a more complex frenemy. Russia does not reach frenemy status unless you are in bed with one of Siberia's finest.
Id be careful about why China went into Tibet...it was pretty logical from their point of view.
As for the South China Sea rationale. After food, one of their potential Achilles heels is access to oil.
Are they going about it in a smart way? No.
Are they the nation most able to extract it ( not going to be easy)? yes
Do 1.4B people need oil and the steady growth that promotes stability? yes
You know who the real dummy is? Us. We could broker a deal for all the affected Asian nations and China so the oil is shared but some form of Chinese American venture extracts, produces and distributes it. A model like this was once known as Aramco.
I don't like the demonization of the South China Sea issues...not only is it handy for naval ship builders and lobbyists funded by Japan...id remind us that our history includes very aggressive pursuit of resources like fruit, sugar, coffee, lumber, etc. to the point of regime change if not invasion. Seems to me this is a resolvable issue. Its not like China can or wants to stop shipping. They need shipping. Now, do they want prime reserves? Sure.
Kinda stupid of them to concentrate on horizontal views of reserve drilling in an age of vertical drilling advances and the new ways to push out underground oil structures. ( technology we have) But as humans they fuck up as well.
Cant fight everyone and in a nuclear world you can only have so many fights.
Fighting them over the south china sea next to them when they are the only other claimant that can force a basket of currencies or theirs as the world trading currency is a huge mistake.
I don't like them. Or their approach to competing or their complete disregard for property rights. Their repression sources from the operative words 1.4B people. Does not mean we should fight them.
We need to fight the only real enemy...us.
That was the point of the discussion. We are the most dangerous enemy to us.
Take care.
Quote:
And not "mutually capabilities." Stupid iPhone autocorrect.
The military has been able to adapt to any form of enemy actions, whether through tactical innovations or technology innovations. It's how our leaders apply those capabilities and the restrictions they place on these military capabilities that have caused much of the issues. But then again, since World War II, we haven't been involved in a decisive conventional warfare beyond the first Gulf War, which we absolutely won even before the war actually began. It's hard to win a war against terrorism when we don't even really know what that means. And while I agree that using a hammer to kill a fly is not smart and has been happening over and over again, it's not the hammer that is the issue (it's still a great tool). It's the decision makers, who decide to use the hammer that's the issue.
Yea my point was we havent won a war on the political side.
Gotcha...agree 100%.
I do think they have more interests that are similar ( but not the same) to interests we have over the long haul as compared to other frameworks
Its a more complex frenemy. Russia does not reach frenemy status unless you are in bed with one of Siberia's finest.
Id be careful about why China went into Tibet...it was pretty logical from their point of view.
As for the South China Sea rationale. After food, one of their potential Achilles heels is access to oil.
Are they going about it in a smart way? No.
Are they the nation most able to extract it ( not going to be easy)? yes
Do 1.4B people need oil and the steady growth that promotes stability? yes
You know who the real dummy is? Us. We could broker a deal for all the affected Asian nations and China so the oil is shared but some form of Chinese American venture extracts, produces and distributes it. A model like this was once known as Aramco.
I don't like the demonization of the South China Sea issues...not only is it handy for naval ship builders and lobbyists funded by Japan...id remind us that our history includes very aggressive pursuit of resources like fruit, sugar, coffee, lumber, etc. to the point of regime change if not invasion. Seems to me this is a resolvable issue. Its not like China can or wants to stop shipping. They need shipping. Now, do they want prime reserves? Sure.
Kinda stupid of them to concentrate on horizontal views of reserve drilling in an age of vertical drilling advances and the new ways to push out underground oil structures. ( technology we have) But as humans they fuck up as well.
Cant fight everyone and in a nuclear world you can only have so many fights.
Fighting them over the south china sea next to them when they are the only other claimant that can force a basket of currencies or theirs as the world trading currency is a huge mistake.
I don't like them. Or their approach to competing or their complete disregard for property rights. Their repression sources from the operative words 1.4B people. Does not mean we should fight them.
We need to fight the only real enemy...us.
That was the point of the discussion. We are the most dangerous enemy to us.
Take care.